Criminal justice

Raising the blindfold

Juries are to be told of prior convictions for certain types of crime

IN THE civil law system in most of continental Europe, a defendant's criminal record is regularly read out in court. Juries in America, by contrast, may be informed of a defendant's prior convictions where this helps show “intent, knowledge and purpose” relating to the alleged crime; but once in court, using previous convictions, or any other evidence, to suggest a propensity to commit a particular type of offence is strictly prohibited. England and Wales, where juries are rarely trusted with any evidence relating to a defendant's past, are far closer to the American system. Judges complain that in as many as one case in four, this leads to wrongful acquittals.

At present the judge may—but does not have to—let the jury know of a defendant's record of repeatedly carrying out crimes in a “strikingly similar” way: attacking a particular kind of person with a particular weapon, for example. This is set to change if Parliament next week approves a measure allowing judges to inform a jury of a defendant's prior convictions or other character-related evidence when they are in the same “category” as the offence being tried. At first, this will apply only to theft and child sex offences—crimes where repeat offences are common. But the home secretary can add other categories later.

The police are delighted. Civil-rights groups and even some judges worry that it could lead to miscarriages of justice. “This is both hugely important and quite dangerous,” one crown court judge says: “For the first time, the prosecution will be able to ask leave for prior convictions to be disclosed simply if the defendant has a propensity to commit such acts. I believe it will enormously influence juries. I also think the Court of Appeal could be kept very busy as the law fails to make clear when the judge should use his discretion to disclose prior convictions. Some will use it one way, others in quite another.”

Originally not due to be implemented until next spring, the measure has been rushed forward. Judges, along with lawyers and court officials, are also unhappy about the lack of training on how to use the new measure. The Law Society is predicting “chaos”.

David Blunkett, the home secretary, says, “juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions”. No one would disagree—but lawyers will argue forever about what it means in practice.